In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-20-00181-CV
__________________
IN THE INTEREST OF I.E.
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 279th District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. C-237,025
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
S.E. (Father) appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his minor
child, I.E. For a trial court to terminate a parent’s rights to his children, the State
must prove by clear and convincing evidence (1) that the parent committed an act
prohibited under section 161.001(1) of the Texas Family Code and (2) that
terminating the parent’s rights is in the children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code
Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)-(2). Here, the parties tried the case to the bench, and the trial
court found clear and convincing evidence supported the Department of Family and
Protective Service’s allegations claiming Father’s rights should be terminated based
1
on several grounds in section 161. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D),
(E), (O), (P). The trial court also found that terminating Father’s rights is in I.E.’s
best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(2).
Father then appealed from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights
to I.E. Subsequently, Father’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in
which counsel contends that no arguable grounds can be advanced to support
Father’s appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In the Interest of
L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no pet.). The brief
provides counsel’s professional evaluation of the record. Counsel served Father with
a copy of the Anders brief filed on his behalf. After Father’s counsel filed the Anders
brief, the Court notified Father of his right to file a pro se response, and the deadline
to do so. Father did not respond to the Court’s notice.
We have independently reviewed the appellate record. Based on the record
before us, we find any appeal would be frivolous as there is no arguable error that
would require the Court to have another attorney appointed to re-brief Father’s
appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). For these
reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
2
Submitted on October 19, 2020
Opinion Delivered November 19, 2020
Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
3